Whilst I was checking through the news over lunch yesterday afternoon, I paused on an article concerning the Prime Minister’s speech at the Conservative Party Conference yesterday.

A frequently-quoted excerpt from Mr Johnson’s speech is that a “productive workforce needs the spur that only comes from face-to-face meetings and water cooler gossip”.

We all know that businesses are ramping up to try and overcome the socio-economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, especially now that we are in a post-furlough world. Therefore, the Prime Minister’s comment quite naturally ties into the need to kick-start the economy. 

However, just this one sentence has created a bit of a mini-sensation with the examination of its impact on flexible working, the question of further mandated working from home as virus figures rise again and (needless to say) health and safety. However, the part of this quote that really leapt out at me was the phrase “water cooler gossip”.

At first blush, the Prime Minister seems to be referring to people as social, learning creatures who need each other to progress. Nevertheless, to an employment lawyer or an HR specialist, the phrase “water cooler gossip” (or simply just “gossip”) can have a similar impact as phrases like “office banter” and “harmless chit chat”. In other words, they should not necessarily be encouraged.

Certainly, work comes with a social aspect alongside it. After all, we spend more time with our colleagues than we do with our own families, or at least we did until our families sort of became our colleagues.

The danger lies in staff and, yes, even employers getting too comfortable with each other. This is possibly no better demonstrated than using words that do not just convey the wrong meaning, but which might also cause maximum offence.

One school that I advised a few years ago had what could possibly be the textbook example of this. 

One day, a caretaker said “You look pretty today” to a teaching assistant in a corridor. The teaching assistant seemed flattered and agreed to exchange mobile numbers with the caretaker. 

A few days later, the caretaker asked the teaching assistant on a date; she declined and said that she just wanted to be friends. The caretaker waited a while and then asked her again. The teaching assistant seemed to agree. 

Soon afterwards, the caretaker dropped the unmentionable comment that brought things too close for comfort (I won't repeat it, but I'm sure we can all guess what it was). Shortly afterwards, a complaint was raised under the school’s anti-bullying and harassment policy and the possible outcome of disciplinary action against the caretaker was on the cards. It did result in disciplinary action that reached a final written warning.

Now, that sort of scenario probably sounds simple on the face of it, but there are lots of considerations to be explored in a situation like this. 

What evidence is available? Is there any evidence that is independent of the employees concerned? What does the evidence actually show? How much of the evidence can be relied upon when it is put under scrutiny? Was the caretaker the aggressor or was he being demonised? What elements of the logic to all of this might be missing?

These are just some of the questions that an investigating officer and (if it gets to that stage) a disciplinary panel will need to ask themselves before coming to a decision, all for the sake of providing a bit more training and guidance on appropriate conduct in the workplace.

Imagine what this sort of situation could give rise to if it also became the subject of workplace gossip.

This is, therefore, the danger behind seemingly innocent “water cooler gossip”.

Contact me at [email protected] or on 01202 076864 if you consider that this might be a problem for your business.